MCU15/0095 & REC15/0022 PM Submission Object - Steve Ellis

                                     The Precautionary       Principle demands that, particularly    in relation to
                                     young children, we address possible risks where scientific
                                     understanding    is yet incomplete     in a way that is not harmful. In the
                                     absence of scientific consensus that the Development            is not harmful,
                                     the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on the Developer and the
                                     Property Owner. The Applicant provides no such evidence or assurance
                                     and in all the circumstances the Development         must be rejected.


Conclusion
The Noosa Biosphere Reserve is sought after and special because of its natural beauty, range of plants
and animals,    the committed      groups   who look after it - and the community             that    strives towards
becoming a healthy community        in a healthy environment        that can be enjoyed for generations.


As parents we have chosen this environment           in which to raise and school our children because of the
specific nature and life-style the Noosa Biosphere has to offer. It ill behoves a Developer, from outside
of our community,     with very different   values, to pillage our prized neighbourhood       and strip our children
of the clean, green, safe privilege we have sought out for them.


A petrol station does not belong adjacent to our school.


Indeed our children    have raised concerns for the frogmouth            owls, possums, grey egrets, whistling     tree
frogs, rosella, plovers, green tree snakes, ducks and lizards that frequent           the Good Shepherd Lutheran
College's grounds, should there be an increase in traffic and a hazardous increase in air pollution                    and
poisonous fumes.


For all these reasons the proposed development            application   is NOT Compatible with other uses and
works. It:

    a.   DOES NOT Maintain the safety of people, specifically children and works;


    b.   DOES NOT Avoid significant adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by users of other premises,
         specifically children, including acoustic and health and well being qualities;


    c.   DOES NOT Avoid significant adverse effects on the natural environment,             including native habitat
         removal, fragmentation     and attrition   and


    d.   DOES NOT avoid significant adverse impacts on, and compromises, the amenity enjoyed by the
         users of other premises in the adjoining Community Services, Housing and Open-space
         Recreations Zones.


I/We urge you, the Assessment Manager, and/or the elected representatives                to reject the Development
as it conflicts with the interests of the public and its obligation        to protect the health and safety of our
school children. From the assessment above, the following contrary conclusions are able to be drawn:

    1.   The proposed use is an inappropriate        and unreasonable        form of development      within the area
         in which it is located.




                                                                                                                        26